3 ms·

Agreed. But it doesn't look like our brothers/sisters in arms would afford us the same luxuries does it? To me it sounds like THEY want the monopoly on force t

Agreed. But it doesn't look like our brothers/sisters in arms would afford us the same luxuries does it? To me it sounds like THEY want the monopoly on force to be governed by a majority or consensus, which would then impose taxes, threaten opposition with force, and centralize power.... Sounds like a government to me... I truly don't think anarcho-capitalism is an abomination. I've come to this stance FROM being a socialist because it's the only moral way of doing things. Thoughts?

anoncowherd 13y ago
Right on the mark there. >> I truly don't think anarcho-capitalism is an abomination. I've come to this stance FROM being a socialist because it's the only moral way of doing things. Thoughts? My suggestion would be to embrace anarcho-capitalism fully, if you're not quite there yet. It's the only moral, reasonable, logical, and consistent way of viewing societies. The Non-Aggression Principle explicitly forbids the initiation of force, which includes any coercion. The flipside of that is that everything should be voluntary, which should be really hard to reasonably argue against. Are you already aware that free markets produce the most wealth to the largest percentage of people anyway? It's all about letting people produce wealth and spread it around through voluntary exchanges, after all. Check out http://mises.org http://mises.org
eli_gottlieb 13y ago
>I've come to this stance FROM being a socialist because it's the only moral way of doing things. Deontology <: morality. That is, deontological moral codes are a strict subset of all moral codes people actually find compelling.
- tokenizer 13y ago
  Could you explain what you mean? What I meant was that while I believe equality and guaranteed access to basic needs as the goal of humanity and necessary for future growth at some point, I also believe that it's impossible to achieve these goals through institutions and governments. My moral change from being a left leaning anarchists to a right leaning anarchist was because I was swayed by Stefan Molyneux's Philosophical arguments for Individualist Anarchy. The only sticking point I still have is the question of wage labour, which I am opposed to. But then it's hard to imagine a society where you can't work for a wage... I think there's a saying about how cows in the slaughterhouse can't truly argue about what's outside. They both have no experience.
  - anoncowherd 13y ago
    >> I was swayed by Stefan Molyneux's Philosophical arguments for Individualist Anarchy. The only sticking point I still have is the question of wage labour, which I am opposed to Good job so far. Next, you need more knowledge of economics: http://mises.org http://mises.org and you'll get around to reaching full sanity :p
    - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
      Except that Austrian "Economics" takes an ideologically anti-empirical stance, so it can't actually be called part of any reputable science of economics.
  - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
    > Could you explain what you mean? Minarcho-capitalism has only one moral rule: the Non-Aggression Principle. It has no considerations of the virtues its system inculcates in people, nor for their utilitarian well-being. It only acknowledges one rule as being a moral factor. Ever. Meaning: go ahead and eat puppies or kick people in debtors' prisons, because you're still obeying the One Rule of not violating private property. Hence my objection: you can't structure an entire society on one moral rule that corresponds to nothing else in any other form of ethics or morals.
    - anoncowherd 13y ago
      >> Minarcho-capitalism has only one moral rule You just made up a new political philosophy there. >> It has no considerations of the virtues its system inculcates in people The virtues "its system" inculcates in people? Look, we're all brainwashed into the cult of statism while growing up, and I've spent my time arguing against sanity too. But you have to draw the line somewhere, and start seeing reason when it's presented to you. Freedom is not a "system". It's just the absence of coercion. If you want to call waking people up into reality, and trying to get them to be consistent and rational in their thinking "inculcation", then be my guest. But that changes nothing about the nature of the world we actually live in. >> nor for their utilitarian well-being. It only acknowledges one rule as being a moral factor. Ever. Even if we all adhere to the NAP, which we're actually naturally inclined to do automatically (because it's not like people walk around wanting to hurt anyone) we're still free to use our common sense whenever the need arises. In other words, the NAP is not some all-encompassing, universal moral absolute that rules out any and all considerations for what might be the right thing to do in some specific situation. >> Meaning: go ahead and eat puppies or kick people in debtors' prisons, because you're still obeying the One Rule of not violating private property. Your brain is working pretty fucking hard in avoiding having to accept reason and reality. As I said, I've had to go through that phase too. But try and get past it already. Let Larken Rose be your therapist: http://www.youtube.com/user/LarkenRose/videos http://www.youtube.com/user/LarkenRose/videos - he's awesome. >> you can't structure an entire society on one moral rule that corresponds to nothing else in any other form of ethics or morals But "don't hurt anyone" is a pretty good moral rule, don't you think? -That's basically what the NAP says.

anoncowherd 13y ago

Right on the mark there. >> I truly don't think anarcho-capitalism is an abomination. I've come to this stance FROM being a socialist because it's the only moral way of doing things. Thoughts? My suggestion would be to embrace anarcho-capitalism fully, if you're not quite there yet. It's the only moral, reasonable, logical, and consistent way of viewing societies. The Non-Aggression Principle explicitly forbids the initiation of force, which includes any coercion. The flipside of that is that everything should be voluntary, which should be really hard to reasonably argue against. Are you already aware that free markets produce the most wealth to the largest percentage of people anyway? It's all about letting people produce wealth and spread it around through voluntary exchanges, after all. Check out http://mises.org http://mises.org

eli_gottlieb 13y ago

>I've come to this stance FROM being a socialist because it's the only moral way of doing things. Deontology <: morality. That is, deontological moral codes are a strict subset of all moral codes people actually find compelling.

tokenizer 13y ago
Could you explain what you mean? What I meant was that while I believe equality and guaranteed access to basic needs as the goal of humanity and necessary for future growth at some point, I also believe that it's impossible to achieve these goals through institutions and governments. My moral change from being a left leaning anarchists to a right leaning anarchist was because I was swayed by Stefan Molyneux's Philosophical arguments for Individualist Anarchy. The only sticking point I still have is the question of wage labour, which I am opposed to. But then it's hard to imagine a society where you can't work for a wage... I think there's a saying about how cows in the slaughterhouse can't truly argue about what's outside. They both have no experience.
- anoncowherd 13y ago
  >> I was swayed by Stefan Molyneux's Philosophical arguments for Individualist Anarchy. The only sticking point I still have is the question of wage labour, which I am opposed to Good job so far. Next, you need more knowledge of economics: http://mises.org http://mises.org and you'll get around to reaching full sanity :p
  - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
    Except that Austrian "Economics" takes an ideologically anti-empirical stance, so it can't actually be called part of any reputable science of economics.
- eli_gottlieb 13y ago
  > Could you explain what you mean? Minarcho-capitalism has only one moral rule: the Non-Aggression Principle. It has no considerations of the virtues its system inculcates in people, nor for their utilitarian well-being. It only acknowledges one rule as being a moral factor. Ever. Meaning: go ahead and eat puppies or kick people in debtors' prisons, because you're still obeying the One Rule of not violating private property. Hence my objection: you can't structure an entire society on one moral rule that corresponds to nothing else in any other form of ethics or morals.
  - anoncowherd 13y ago
    >> Minarcho-capitalism has only one moral rule You just made up a new political philosophy there. >> It has no considerations of the virtues its system inculcates in people The virtues "its system" inculcates in people? Look, we're all brainwashed into the cult of statism while growing up, and I've spent my time arguing against sanity too. But you have to draw the line somewhere, and start seeing reason when it's presented to you. Freedom is not a "system". It's just the absence of coercion. If you want to call waking people up into reality, and trying to get them to be consistent and rational in their thinking "inculcation", then be my guest. But that changes nothing about the nature of the world we actually live in. >> nor for their utilitarian well-being. It only acknowledges one rule as being a moral factor. Ever. Even if we all adhere to the NAP, which we're actually naturally inclined to do automatically (because it's not like people walk around wanting to hurt anyone) we're still free to use our common sense whenever the need arises. In other words, the NAP is not some all-encompassing, universal moral absolute that rules out any and all considerations for what might be the right thing to do in some specific situation. >> Meaning: go ahead and eat puppies or kick people in debtors' prisons, because you're still obeying the One Rule of not violating private property. Your brain is working pretty fucking hard in avoiding having to accept reason and reality. As I said, I've had to go through that phase too. But try and get past it already. Let Larken Rose be your therapist: http://www.youtube.com/user/LarkenRose/videos http://www.youtube.com/user/LarkenRose/videos - he's awesome. >> you can't structure an entire society on one moral rule that corresponds to nothing else in any other form of ethics or morals But "don't hurt anyone" is a pretty good moral rule, don't you think? -That's basically what the NAP says.